As Gableman's NEW lawyer wrote in a letter to the editor that the Journal-Sentinel has conveniently refused to publish . . .Reporter Patrick Marley published it about a week ago. It's right here.
And we've been enjoying it ever since. Where you been, Chuckles?
How is it that a contingency fee arrangement is suddenly a "gift"?Because there was no valuable consideration. There is no value in some wholly speculative, arguably non-monetizable recovery, where third parties only may have reimbursed Gableman for his legal services if he had won his ethics case. That is, even if he had won — which he didn't — the likelihood that he would have recovered anything was equal to the likelihood of his recovering nothing. The former likelihood may have been a consideration in the de minimis, peppercorn sense, but the Code of Judicial Conduct requires it to be a valuable consideration. Otherwise Gableman's tens of thousands of dollars in legal services was a gift, according to the Code's own definition. This question of what is valuable consideration is not so easily hand-waved away by Gableman's defenders.
A legal "if" followed by a legal "may" starts to make stuff mighty attenuated from the ability to place an actual value on something, whatever that something may have been wholly speculated to be.
[Contingency fee arrangements are] what gets the jackpots that are used to fund a huge part of the Left’s political apparatus.Really, well there clearly was no "jackpot" here, buddy. And that is precisely why there was no valuable consideration, and precisely why Gableman's tens of thousands of dollars in legal services was a gift.
But yeah, y'all keep emphasizing the extremely high-dollar value of what Gableman did receive,* because that really buttresses his apparent claim that his entirely speculative consideration** was in fact a valuable one.
In the meantime maybe Gableman can waive his attorney-client privilege so the people who elected him can have a look at what went down here.
And compare it with what was required of him by the Code of Conduct.
* And is receiving, from the looks of things.
** Which, by the way, was not even Gableman's consideration to give.